next »

[mountainmanjed]

Okay, there is a lot of nonsense going around about fighting games I'm going to be general here since only a few of you only played smash. Personally, I my main game at the moment is Vampire Savior(Dark Stalkers 3) and King of Fighters series.

I'm going have to give the evolution of how fighting games are played now days.

The start for most people who are really into fighters was Street Fighter 2 the World Warrior what introduced on the surface was poking and zoning. Poking is the method of using normals(basic attacks punch and kicks) to get on the inside of the opponent. Zoning was a way of trapping an opponent to prevent him from moving(an example of this is watch a Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo match with O.Sagat in it). After few weeks with the game people started to notice few glitches that are commonly used these days the Fighting Game Community called these chains and cross-ups. Chains are the most basic form of a combo it just means you can attack a again with no punishment. Cross-ups are an attack the hits on the other side to the point where the person stops blocking and moves(can be stopped by blocking the other way). These basics are still used to this day.

Should I continue?

[[RM8]]

Yup, those basics are still used to this day. In traditional fighters. My original question was, does a game need combos to be considered a fighting game? to be considered competitive? Using Brawl as an example because it lacks normal combos (unlike the first two Smash games), and people also mentioned Bushido Blade. So, just like SundownKid said - jumping is a 'basic' of platformers, but that doesn't mean Bionic Commando is not one because it lacks jumping, and it doesn't mean it's not good (I really liked that analogy).

And for the record, the best KOF player in my city is also the best Brawl player. He loves both games, one being very combo heavy and the other one completely lacking this element.

[J-Snake]

I think it heavily depends what type of combos we are talking about. Tekken-combos add a lot of depth to mind gaming while street-fighter combos challenge timing-skills (and possibly some energy-management) and add less depth to mind gaming. StreetFighter has less depth in closed combat by nature compared to tekken.

[the_dannobot]

Actually, our very own Turbo Brother made a demake I like more than the original
playthisthing.com/bushido-edge (not trying to be self-aggrandizing here, but nobody else really wrote about it)

He also made a sequel that makes use of stances, but I haven't gotten to play that yet. My little brother is back in town today, so I'll definitely give it a shot shortly.

Ok, Bushido Edge is pretty good.  It distills the fighting down to the chocolatey nuget, I don't think there is anything else you could take out.  I'd be interested to hear what he's doing with stances.

[s0]

Tekken should be a turn-based game where you select moves from a list.

[J-Snake]

Then there wouldn't be a point in adding combos:P:P (combo resets...all the nice concepts based on real-time probability)

[mountainmanjed]

Even in smash you have combos. Is simple mode combos in tvc and now mvc3 where you mash one button for your string of normals not a combo? Are throw loops in smash or x-men vs street fighter considered not considered combos even though they make the combo counter go up? Of course they are combos.

Also by the way Bushido Blade still has multi hit moves and follow ups that can be considered combos.

[[RM8]]

Yes, even in Smash you have combos. It's just that the really low hitstun in Brawl makes normal combos practically impossible, unlike 64/Melee where there were plenty of 0% to death unavoidable combos. Which makes a lot of people believe Brawl is a worse game specifically because of this.

[jwk5]

I would like to see a game that focuses on momentum and body leaning. What I mean is if you throw a punch that leans your body forward and combo into other strikes increasing the lean your balance would get harder and harder to maintain (possibly setting yourself up to be pulled off your feet or powerfully struck with an opposing force collision). If you manage to maintain your balance by controlling your lean you increase your momentum allowing for a quick succession of strikes that are hard to counter. Fight Night and UFC Undisputed kind of touch upon this but I'd like to see a fighting game really take full advantage of its dynamics. It really rewards well-timed singular strikes as much as it does rapid-succession strikes.

On a side note, some combo-based games can be really fun. In Soul Calibur 4 and Tekken 6 the combos have a very rhythmic feel. A battle between two really good players looks very beautiful, almost like a dance, with dodging, deflecting, and strings of moves going every which way. I don't think combos are necessary for every game but for some they can really enhance the theme and aesthetics of the game, not just the game play itself. So that is another thing to consider when thinking about adding (or not adding) combos (i.e. whether or not it will enhance the "feel" of the game).

[gimymblert]

Your leaning dynamics sound like the DI dynamics in smash

[Contrary]

I don't think those are the only reasons people don't like Brawl. I don't like Brawl because it feels like every move you do has a very small chance of success, a very small reward, and a high chance of punishment. To me it feels like the most effective thing to do is to run away or do nothing until the other guy does something, then you punish it.

Combos are certainly not the most important thing in a fighting game. In many cases they could be effectively replaced by making the launcher do more damage instead (on hit conditions which would launch). But I also think they are good in that they give you an option of the reward you want for landing your launcher. I know that in Soul Calibur I'll use multiple enders off the same launcher, depending if I want to Ring out, gain better ring positioning, set up good oki (mixups on people when they are getting up) or set up for a force block so I can Soul Crush them (deplete the meter they need to block moves).

But I think that combos are definitely unimportant to actual gameplay, which should be mixup and reaction time, as PEres said. To me, fighting games are about the mix up, and the deception and the spacing and the intuition and mind reading. It's about calculated risks and situational awareness, careful defense and fierce offense. Are combos the most important thing to players you might ask? It might be. It isn't for me or anyone I know in the Soul Calibur community, except for maybe the faggoty Setsuka players, but no one likes them anyways.

A lot of people DO enjoy pulling off difficult combos (see: Setsuka players) and I have heard people say they really enjoy it. I really enjoy pulling off combos, I enjoy playing Guitar Hero. But it's not the main thing.

I think the most combo oriented fighting game I've ever played is SSB64. I play Jigglypuff and my friend plays Captain Falcon. Games are often made or broken whether I can pull off my 0 to death combo (drill utilt utilt pivot grab uair uair uair rest if you're interested). If I'm off by a pixel with my rest I got Falcon Punched to death at 40%. He can kill me very quickly as wiell, getting me from 0 to critical (within one hit of dying) or even dead off of a grab. But it's still fun, I really enjoy SSB64, and so does my friend. I think that if my dair install killed, or his grab just did 80% for free we'd have a lot less fun. However I still think that even then it would be a fun game as the high risk high reward nature of doing stuff enhances everything else. It makes spacing absolutely critical- people often laugh when they see us spamming fairs at each other, each pixel of advancement being a calculated risk- one button tap too much and you're dead. But SSB64 might not be the best example as within combos there is a lot of mixup, what with DI and all (he can DI to fuck up a lot of my combos, for example if I grab at certain percents he can DI out of the Uair necessitating a regrab or utilt or he can DI down after and uair making me need to switch to dair drill). Anyways my point is that I don't think people don't like Brawl because of lack of combos, I think it's because of the randomness and its sluggish nature, shitty balance and the poor risk-reward-chance-of-each ratios.

[[RM8]]

Yeah, I know that's not the only factor (as mentioned in the first post), but yes, people don't like Brawl in part because it lacks combos, and that's the main point of this thread. I just used this situation as an example, but wasn't really trying to discuss the lack of combos in Brawl, but their importance in fighting games in general. And I personally enjoy the combo oriented SSB64 and the ultra defensive Brawl.

[Yabab]

Hi, I'm new here. But let's try hitting the ground running...

The Melee players may think that the lack of combos is game breaking and something that the developer did wrong. I'm not sure I agree, for me, trying new things is always important and changing the tone is a part of trying new things.

But just try telling that to people, specially the ones at Ubisoft's official forums on their latest releases. The Ghost Recon fans and the Splinter Cell fans are engaged in open fighting with the company, so to speak. Every thread is a swearingfest against the company, simply because they try changing the game's franchise. Now, sure this is a indie game development forum, but I guess it serves to show that a fanbase is pretty attached to its expectations for the game.

So, while changing the game's pace, setting and tone for the sake of innovation might be a pretty idea design-wise. It's a complete ruin for most fans who actually care. And this is to say that perhaps gamers are being spoiled by the way we design, develop and release games. Whenever someone reads the combination "<Game Title> 2: <Cool sub title>" they expect, as would Gears of War star figure say, something bigger, badder and more bad-ass, though still in the same vein. They expect an improvement in gameplay, as in polishing it further. Whereas sometimes the gameplay should follow the story and not the way around. And that's to show that most players care about the gameplay, which is something most design authors state. But, at the same time, sometimes, the message the game has to pass on is much more important for the designer than simply entertaining.

And sure, people will start telling given designer that he should start writing books or directing movies, but no. The intimacy potential which games hold is much larger than books and movies and I think it is therefore worth pursuing a way to create compelling gameplay which supports a new theme or tone everytime a turn in the story happens, should the designer feel that the pace and feeling of the game must comply to the story.

That's why I would be so against making sequels for certain game ideas I have, and that's not to say I wouldn't make a sequel ever, but, for some titles I wouldn't have a problem designing gameplay from scratch every new iteration, should the story demand it.

So to cut it short, I don't think combos are the most important part of fighting games. You could want to design a fighting game which rewards 'patience', so you have to carefully read your opponent, consider his stance and then punch, instead of rewarding 'effort', like training everyday so you can pull that triple puch, double heel kick spin special move. That's totally OK with me.

[s0]

And sure, people will start telling given designer that he should start writing books or directing movies, but no. The intimacy potential which games hold is much larger than books and movies and I think it is therefore worth pursuing a way to create compelling gameplay which supports a new theme or tone everytime a turn in the story happens, should the designer feel that the pace and feeling of the game must comply to the story.

That's why I would be so against making sequels for certain game ideas I have, and that's not to say I wouldn't make a sequel ever, but, for some titles I wouldn't have a problem designing gameplay from scratch every new iteration, should the story demand it.

I don't mean to sound but I can't seem to figure out how this fits into a discussion about fighters, a genre that's not exactly known for its focus on story.

[Yabab]

And sure, people will start telling given designer that he should start writing books or directing movies, but no. The intimacy potential which games hold is much larger than books and movies and I think it is therefore worth pursuing a way to create compelling gameplay which supports a new theme or tone everytime a turn in the story happens, should the designer feel that the pace and feeling of the game must comply to the story.

That's why I would be so against making sequels for certain game ideas I have, and that's not to say I wouldn't make a sequel ever, but, for some titles I wouldn't have a problem designing gameplay from scratch every new iteration, should the story demand it.

I don't mean to sound but I can't seem to figure out how this fits into a discussion about fighters, a genre that's not exactly known for its focus on story.

It's just an example of change. Gameplay changes for some reason and people become pissed. In Brawl's case I have no idea why it changed, it just so happens that in the example I gave, it has to do with the game's story.

[Squidly]

I honestly think quickness and responsiveness are the two most important things.
No matter what the game is, it has to be recognizable what does what.

Too many games are trying to be "hardcore" that they forget that the game has to actually make sense too, especially if it's on the computer, you have to have some understandable controls, combos, and such.